6.  The applicants are a mother and daughter who were born in 1953 and 1975 respectively and live in Chişinău.
7.  The applicants are shareholders in company C. The background to the case lies in a dispute between the applicants and two other shareholders in the company (I.A. and S.A.) which started in 1998. At that time the first applicant owned eighty percent of the company’s shares while I.A. and S.A. claimed to be the owners of over fifty percent of the shares. The matter was taken before the courts and the first applicant was successful before the first two instances, which accepted her position in the judgments of the Râşcani District Court of 25 July 1999 and of the Chişinău Regional Court of 27 September 1999. The judgments were reversed, however, by the Court of Appeal on 21 December 1999.
8.  The first applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal which was upheld by the Supreme Court on 5 July 2000. The Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 21 December 1999 and left the judgment of the Chişinău Regional Court of 27 September 1999 as the final decision in the case.
9.  After that date I.A. and S.A. lodged numerous extraordinary appeals and revision requests challenging the judgment of 27 September 1999. However, they were all unsuccessful.
10.  In 2000 the first applicant purchased 13.15% of the shares of the company and in 2003 she donated all her shares to the second applicant. In the same year the second applicant purchased 1.31% of the shares, thus becoming the owner of 94.46% of the shares.
11.  On 3 July 2006 I.A. and S.A. lodged a new revision request with the Supreme Court of Justice challenging the judgment of 27 September 1999. The request was based on Article 449 (b), (c) and (h) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the reason given in the request was that following two expert evaluations ordered by them and carried out on 18 and 19 May 2006, it appeared that several documents which had formed the basis of the judgment of 27 September 1999 had been false. I.A. and S.A. also argued that they had lodged an application with the European Court complaining that the principle of legal certainty had been violated by an abusive quashing by the Supreme Court of Justice on 5 July 2000 of the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 21 December 1999. In support of their request I.A. and S.A. attached to their request a copy of their application lodged with the Court and copies of correspondence with the Court concerning application no. 10232/03.
12.  The first applicant and company C. objected and argued, inter alia, that the revision request was time-barred and that the simple fact of lodging an application with the European Court of Human Rights was not a sufficient basis for quashing a final judgment under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. They also disputed the allegations concerning the false documents and argued that these allegations had been made in previous revision requests lodged by I.A. and S.A. and had been rejected by the courts. In particular they submitted that the conclusion from the expert reports of 18 and 19 May 2006 had been taken from a previous expert report dated 12 July 2005 written by the same expert. Moreover, the first applicant had finally been acquitted in criminal proceedings on charges of forging the above documents on 18 February 2003. Finally, the defendants argued that I.A. and S.A. had failed to pay court fees.
13.  On 27 November 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld I.A.’s and S.A.’s revision request. As a result, the judgment of the Chişinău Regional Court of 27 September 1999 was quashed while the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 21 December 1999 became the final decision in the case. The Supreme Court did not examine any of the defendants’ contentions and, after acknowledging the existence of the reports of 18 and 19 May 2006 and of the lodging by I.A. and S.A. of an application with the Court, found that the quashing by the Supreme Court on 5 July 2000 of the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 21 December 1999 had been contrary to the principle of legal certainty.
14.  After the enforcement of the above judgment I.A. and S.A. obtained control of 50.925% of the shares of company C.; the first applicant kept control of 48.775% of the shares, while the second applicant lost all of her shares.
15.  On 20 February 2007 a committee of three judges of the European Court declared application no. 10232/03 lodged by I.A. and S.A. manifestly ill-founded and therefore inadmissible
16.  After learning about the Court’s decision in the above case, the applicants initiated revision proceedings with the Supreme Court of Justice seeking revision of the judgment of 27 November 2006. In particular, they argued that the application to the Court which had served as grounds for the revision of the final judgment of 27 September 1999 had been declared inadmissible. They also argued that the second applicant, who had had over 94% of the company’s shares, was not a party to the revision proceedings which had ended with the judgment of 27 November 2006.
17.  On 2 July 2007, the Plenary Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicants’ revision request. Judge D.V. wrote a separate opinion in which he disagreed with the decision of the majority and expressed the view that the applicants’ revision request should have been upheld, especially in view of the European Court’s decision to dismiss application no. 10232/03.